The first focus group findings come from an anonymized Quaker Focus™ report. The revised presentation, second group, and settlement outcome are illustrative. (See full report)

I would rather find out before mediation that our damages arguments are working better than our explanation of the collision. That gives us something specific to address before taking the same presentation into trial.

In the first focus group, participants initially assigned the defendant an average of 57% of the fault. Questions about medical treatment and billing were helping the defense on damages, but they were not substantially changing participants’ views on liability.

In this follow-up example, the defense updated its case presentation based on that feedback. The accident reconstruction engineer revised the explanation of the collision angle and forces involved. Updated trial exhibits made that explanation easier to follow, and the engineer explained more clearly why, in the defense’s view, the plaintiff’s reconstruction analysis was wrong.

The defense then ran a second focus group using the revised presentation. Participants assigned the defendant an average of 20% of the fault. The team incorporated the revised explanation and exhibits into its trial preparation and shared selected results from the second group at mediation.

The initial demand was $1.5 million, against a defense offer of $150,000. The defense had been prepared to settle for up to $400,000 if the second group did not produce a substantially better liability assessment. After selected results were disclosed at mediation, the demand dropped to $500,000, then $300,000. The case settled for $200,000.

Against a $400,000 indemnity reserve and $125,000 future litigation expense reserve, the settlement and two $6,000 focus groups totaled $313,000 less than the combined reserves, before closing-document costs. The remaining litigation work was limited to preparing those documents.

For me, the useful part is what happened between the two groups. The defense used participant feedback to change how it explained the evidence, then tested that presentation before relying on it at mediation or trial. The report gave the team something to work on, not simply a result to file away.